Page 1 of 33

Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:12 am
by KindaSkolarly
Trump's latest executive order targets violators of human rights. Sex slave traffickers, traffickers of children, harvesters of black market organs.

Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, such as those committed or directed by persons listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that form an essential foundation of stable, secure, and functioning societies; have devastating impacts on individuals; weaken democratic institutions; degrade the rule of law; perpetuate violent conflicts; facilitate the activities of dangerous persons; and undermine economic markets. The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who commit serious human rights abuse or engage in corruption, as well as to protect the financial system of the United States from abuse by these same persons.

I therefore determine that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat....

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... orruption/

The Bush/Clinton/Obama management team has committed especially egregious acts in the area of human rights violations. Hopefully their operations, and the operations of others, will now be financially impacted to the point where things like child trafficking are stopped.

Under Obama we had this:

More than 10,000 unaccompanied minors stopped at the U.S.-Mexico border in the last two months

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... onths.html

Why did Obama bring those kids to the US? That's not a "humanitarian" act, so why?

And then there's Laura Silsby, friend of the Clintons, child trafficker:

https://steemit.com/silsby/@psychanaut/ ... ber-alerts

The Clinton Foundation, Obama's new foundation, the Bush family's vast empire of corporations--the precedent has now been set to target groups such as these for human rights violations. And THIS is why the swamp (Washington DC) has worked so hard to sabotage Trump. When the human rights stories begin to break (especially the pedophile coverups), the swamp creatures will be lucky to escape with their lives.

Thank you President Trump.

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:40 am
by Interbane
The Executive Order enforcing the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act was the right move. But giving credit to Trump is odd, since Obama is the one who signed the Act just before leaving office.

The swamp is overflowing with Trump. From Corey Lewandowski starting a lobbying firm, K street firms hiring Trump staffers left and right, Jum Murphy joining BakerHostetler, Bill Smith partnering with Fidelix. Trump hasn't isolated himself from his business interests like he said he would, he's hired lobbyists into all levels of his staff. Some of his staff are former AAA lobbyists. He's taken what was a revolving door between government and lobbyists and put a motor on it for easier transition.

He spends way more time than promised golfing, and spends a lot of tax money on private jets. Whenever he stays at one of the locations he owns, the government entourage pays premium to stay. How is that not a conflict? Trump still hasn't released his tax returns. He's using money donated to his campaign to pay personal lawyers. Trademark approvals that benefit him are magically approved the same time he meets with president Xi from China. His son in law, J. Kushner, is promising Visas to foreign entities if they invest in his properties. In spite of his promises otherwise, the tax cuts will benefit Trump tremendously.

The list is long and in a single year, is worse than any list you can put together from Obama's 8 years. This isn't mentioning the accusations of sexual assault against him.



The stories you linked do not match with the summary you give them. Obama "brought" kids to the US? Laura Silsby is a child trafficker? Are you repeating headlines from Facebook without reading the articles? Take some wisdom from Obama on sourcing your information:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42491638


Of course the perspective must be balanced. There's a lot of accusation always thrown in the direction of the Clintons. I'm one to think that where there's smoke there's flame, even though I haven't read anything yet that hasn't been facebook-style fake news. If there's anything amiss in the Clinton empire, it should be trampled and the Clintons should do the walk of shame. The same applies universally. But in determining what is true and what is biased-half truth, we need more than reliance on Facebook research specialists.

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:21 pm
by geo
Interbane wrote:. . . Of course the perspective must be balanced. There's a lot of accusation always thrown in the direction of the Clintons. I'm one to think that where there's smoke there's flame, even though I haven't read anything yet that hasn't been facebook-style fake news. If there's anything amiss in the Clinton empire, it should be trampled and the Clintons should do the walk of shame. The same applies universally.
This is really good advice. We are bombarded daily with many narratives, some of which are pretty far off the reservation, so to speak. We can't rely on Facebook memes for news, but neither is it enough to simply declare that something is "fake news" without first analyzing the evidence. More importantly, we need to know when there isn't enough evidence to support a conclusion being bandied about on social media sites. For example, I can't find any credible source that shows that Hillary Clinton's association with Laura Silsby is anything nefarious or illegal. That's not to say Clinton definitely didn't do anything illegal, but until actual facts emerge, it's reasonable to be skeptical of such claims. There's a reason why major newspapers don't usually publish reports based on innuendo and suspicion.

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:44 pm
by ant
There's a reason why major newspapers don't usually publish reports based on innuendo and suspicion.
This all seems to have collapsed, particularly with once trusted sources like CNN which has been caught red-handed circulating news not established as fact, and later retracting the item.

Also who can forget the collaborating CNN and the Clinton campaign did prior to the second presidential debate.

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:15 am
by Interbane
ant wrote:This all seems to have collapsed, particularly with once trusted sources like CNN which has been caught red-handed circulating news not established as fact, and later retracting the item.

Also who can forget the collaborating CNN and the Clinton campaign did prior to the second presidential debate.
I don't think anything is collapsed. We shouldn't place complete trust in any source. Bad information is legion. In media, online, in our heads.

The attempt by conservatives to trick the Washington Post into publishing a fake story is something I think is healthy for media.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -news.html

Any source should be put to the test from time to time. But I don't think doing it maliciously is a good thing.
ant wrote:Also who can forget the collaborating CNN and the Clinton campaign did prior to the second presidential debate.
Wasn't that Donna Brazile?

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:49 pm
by geo
ant wrote:This all seems to have collapsed, particularly with once trusted sources like CNN which has been caught red-handed circulating news not established as fact, and later retracting the item.
Personally, I don't like CNN. It seems to pander to the lowest common denominator and is apt to sensationalize the news. This might be true of any 24-hour news channel, which must fill in all that space with something. The goal is increase viewership more than to accurately report the news.

I would say print media is a better choice for getting the news. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are both excellent.

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:10 pm
by DWill
geo wrote:
Interbane wrote:. . . Of course the perspective must be balanced. There's a lot of accusation always thrown in the direction of the Clintons. I'm one to think that where there's smoke there's flame, even though I haven't read anything yet that hasn't been facebook-style fake news. If there's anything amiss in the Clinton empire, it should be trampled and the Clintons should do the walk of shame. The same applies universally.
This is really good advice. We are bombarded daily with many narratives, some of which are pretty far off the reservation, so to speak. We can't rely on Facebook memes for news, but neither is it enough to simply declare that something is "fake news" without first analyzing the evidence. More importantly, we need to know when there isn't enough evidence to support a conclusion being bandied about on social media sites. For example, I can't find any credible source that shows that Hillary Clinton's association with Laura Silsby is anything nefarious or illegal. That's not to say Clinton definitely didn't do anything illegal, but until actual facts emerge, it's reasonable to be skeptical of such claims. There's a reason why major newspapers don't usually publish reports based on innuendo and suspicion.
Let's hear it for gatekeepers in media, while we're at it. Time was, getting something published or broadcast meant clearing some hurdles, hurdles that are now despised as institutional biases. The questionable publications, like The National Enquirer, were easily marginalized and were kind of a fun sideline, never taken seriously. I wonder how the Enquirer gets along now, by the way--read by people who don't have internet? It surely can't compete with the 'net.

I agree with you, sticking with print is the best way to get the news and avoid the circus atmosphere of Fox, CNN, MSNBC.

Trump has been enormously destructive of our democracy with his attacks on news reporting. That may sound like overblown concern, but I really think it's a justified reaction. We can't have a functioning democracy without an accepted means of keeping the public record. Our president disgusts me with his attacks on the "fake news" whenever facts aren't to his personal liking.

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:21 pm
by DB Roy
What kind of president attacks the press every time it says something he doesn't like? The same kind that tweets racist propaganda from a foreign far right fringe cult and when that country protests, tells them to blow it out their ass. The same kind that refuses to shake hands with the leader of a vital Western European ally because he disagrees with their internal policies that have no effect on him. The same kind that threatens nuclear destruction on a country for having the same nuclear aspirations. The same kind that urges Congress to pass bills he admits he hasn't read or know what they say. The same kind that accuses his predecessor of bugging his headquarters but can't produce an ounce of evidence to support it. The kind that threatens his democratic opponent with prison and then says he won't go after her because she's good people and then says he will go after her then says he won't then says he might. The same kind that attacks and criticizes an American territory for being leveled in a hurricane and threatens to cut off their aid. The same kind that tells the Russians of secret U.S. naval warship positions while complaining of too many leaks at the White House. The same kind that mocks a disabled man in front of crowds. The same kind that feuds with a gold star family. The same kind that molests women including his own daughter. The same kind that criticizes a teenage girl for questioning him at a Q&A prompting his insane followers to send her death threats. The same kind that calls peacefully protesting black men sons-of-bitches but refuses to say one word again white supremacists after they murdered a woman in Charlottesville. He might be a president like that.

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:43 am
by Litwitlou
geo wrote:
ant wrote:This all seems to have collapsed, particularly with once trusted sources like CNN which has been caught red-handed circulating news not established as fact, and later retracting the item.
Personally, I don't like CNN. It seems to pander to the lowest common denominator and is apt to sensationalize the news. This might be true of any 24-hour news channel, which must fill in all that space with something. The goal is increase viewership more than to accurately report the news.

I would say print media is a better choice for getting the news. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are both excellent.
Disney World's Trump robot target of screaming rant. Is there any place that's safe from leftist insanity?

Fox News 12/31/2017
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/ ... anity.html

Re: Draining the swamp - Thank you Donald Trump

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:45 am
by DWill
ant wrote:
There's a reason why major newspapers don't usually publish reports based on innuendo and suspicion.
This all seems to have collapsed, particularly with once trusted sources like CNN which has been caught red-handed circulating news not established as fact, and later retracting the item.

Also who can forget the collaborating CNN and the Clinton campaign did prior to the second presidential debate.
An authoritarian attack on the free media would try to magnify such a lapse. It's a certainty that print and electronic media will make mistakes and commit abuses. It has always been that way and always will be in any large human endeavor. Once the would-be authoritarian has already attacked all media as the enemy of the people, as Trump has, all he needs to do is wait for slip-ups and then point to them as vindication of his charges. Do you really find justification for Trump's view in the errors made or biases shown by CNN?

Everyone needs to have media savvy. Media can produce distortions and reflect biases, clearly. Media exists in a competitive atmosphere, for one thing, which can lead to hyping of simple facts. One small example of hype is a headline I just saw; it claimed that Trump "declared war" on Amazon for its taking advantage of the USPS to get low shipping fees. As far as I know, Trump was doing only what he usually does, tweeting his gripes. Nothing indicates anything as extensive as conducting a war against Amazon. Yet a reader may easily be misled by the headline.

Another example of media distortion is claimed by a writer objecting to the way the media portrays the state of the African American family. There is an accepted narrative that the black family is in serious trouble compared to white families. This stereotype is perpetuated, the writer contends, by both politicians and creators of television entertainment. But the evidence weighs against the prevalent media view of familial breakdown in the black family. Certain perspectives or memes become embedded in our discourse and stubbornly persist.

It's nothing new for politicians to complain about their media coverage. It wasn't just Nixon who did this, although he was the loudest before Trump. John Mccain criticized his coverage and the "gotcha" mode of reporters. "Even in moments of frustration, however, McCain never accused the media of rigging an election or being 'the enemy of the American people.' On balance, he was accessible and affable during the 2008 race and during a prior White House bid in 2000, qualities which made reporters' jobs easier and helped cement McCain's status as one of the best interviews in Washington.

He has consistently shown respect for the role of the press and kept his criticisms in bounds. At a time when the head of McCain's party does neither, journalists appreciate his relative grace all the more."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 2282a99928

Obama didn't always act as strong advocate of a free press. "His administration’s aggressive attempts to uncover confidential sources, secretly subpoena phone records of news organizations, prosecute whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, and forbid government officials from speaking to reporters, didn’t exactly endear him to the Fourth Estate." However, in his last press conference he made clear how vital to democracy is a media that has the strong support of the government. "'America needs you and our democracy needs you,' Obama said in his opening statement in the jam-packed briefing room in the West Wing. 'We need you to establish a baseline of facts and evidence that we can use as a starting point for the kind of reasoned and informed debates that ultimately lead to progress. And so my hope is that you will continue with the same tenacity that you showed us, to do the hard work of getting to the bottom of stories and getting them right and to push those of us in power to be the best version of ourselves and to push this country to be the best version of itself.'

Those sentiments could hardly have been a more pointed rebuke to president-elect Donald Trump’s incessant slander of working journalists—including in his Wednesday morning Twitter rant, in which he bitterly complained about NBC News’s 'totally biased' reporting—as 'dishonest…scum' and 'the lowest form of life.'"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/not-alway ... conference